ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

Petitioner,

V.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

To : Pollution Control Board, Attn : Clerk Division of Legal Counsel

James R. Thompson Center

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

100 W . Randolph

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

Suite 11-500

P .O. Box 19276

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the

Pollution control Board the original and nine copies of the Appeal of

CAAPP Permit

of

Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station and the Appearances of

Sheldon

A. Zabel, Kathleen C. Bassi, Stephen J. Bonebrake, and Kavita M . Patel, copies of

which are herewith served upon you .

/s/ Kathleen C . Bassi

Kathleen C . Bassi

Dated :

April 7, 2006

Sheldon A . Zabel

Kathleen C . Bassi

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Kavita M . Patel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax : 312-258-5600

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

Petitioner,

V .

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

.

APPEARANCE

I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of Midwest Generation, LLC,

Will County Generating Station .

/s/ Kathleen C . Bassi

Kathleen C. Bassi

Dated :

April 7, 2006

Sheldon A . Zabel

Kathleen C . Bassi

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Kavita M . Patel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax : 312-258-5600

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

Petitioner,

V .

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent .

APPEARANCE

I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of Midwest Generation, LLC,

Will County Generating Station

.

/s/ Sheldon A

. Zabel

Sheldon A . Zabel

Dated :

April 7, 2006

Sheldon A . Zabel

Kathleen C

. Bassi

Stephen J

. Bonebrake

Kavita M . Patel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

Petitioner,

V .

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

APPEARANCE

I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of Midwest Generation, LLC,

Will County Generating Station .

/s/ StephenJ . Bonebrake

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Dated :

April 7, 2006

Sheldon A. Zabel

Kathleen C . Bassi

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Kavita M . Patel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax

: 312-258-5600

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

Petitioner,

V .

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

APPEARANCE

I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of Midwest Generation, LLC,

Will County Generating Station

.

/s/ Kavita M

. Patel

Kavita M . Patel

Dated

:

April 7, 2006

Sheldon A . Zabel

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Joshua R . More

Kavita M . Patel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE, ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

)

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 06-

(Permit Appeal - Air)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent

.

)

APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

NOW COMES Petitioner, MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC, WILL COUNTY

GENERATING STATION ("Petitioner," "Will County," or "Midwest Generation"), pursuant to

Section 40(a)(1) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/40(a)(1)) and

35 IILAdm .Code § 105 .200 et seq.,

and requests a hearing before the Board to contest the

decisions contained in the construction permit' issued to Petitioner on March 3, 2006, (received

via facsimile) pursuant to Section 39(a) of the Act (415 II-CS 5/39(a) and 35 Il1

.Adm .Code §

201

.142 ("the construction permit") and attached hereto as Exhibit L 35 III

.Adm

.Code §§

105.210(a) and (b). Pursuant to Section 39(a) of the Act and 35 III

.Adm .Code § 105

.206(a), this

Petition is timely filed with the Board. In support of its Petition

. Petitioner states as follows :

I. BACKGROUND

The Will County Generating Station ("Will County" or the "Station"), Agency

I.D. No. 197810AAK, is an electric generating station owned by Midwest Generation, LLC, and

I Application No

. 06020009 .

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

operated by Midwest Generation, LLC

- Will County Generating Station . The Will County

electrical generating units ("FGUs") went online between 1955 and 1963 . The Station is located

at 529 East 135`h

Road, Romeoville, Will County, Illinois 60446-1538, within the Chicago

ozone and PM2 .52

nonattainment areas . Will County is an intermediate load plant and can

generate approximately 1100 megawatts . Midwest Generation employs 190 people at the Will

County Generating Station .

2 .

Will County is a major source subject to the Clean Air Act Permitting Program

("CAAPP")

. 415 ILCS 5/39 .5. The Agency issued a CAAPP permit to Midwest Generation for

Will County on September 29, 2005

. Subsequently, on November 2, 2005, Midwest Generation

timely appealed the CAAPP permit for Will County at PCB 06-060 . The Board accepted the

appeal for hearing on November 17, 2005

. On February 16, 2006, the Board found that,

pursuant to Section 10-65(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/10-65(b))

("APA") and the holding in Borg-Warner Corp

. v . Mauzy, 427 N .E. 2d 415 (IlI .App.Ct . 1981)

("Borg-Warner"), the CAAPP permit is stayed, upon appeal, as a matter of law . Order, Midwest

Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station v

. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 06-060 (February 16, 2006) ("Order I"), p. 2.

3 .

Midwest Generation operates four coal-fired boilers at Will County and

associated coal handling, coal processing, and ash handling activities

. Coal is crushed and

prepared in the breaker building and then sent through a series of conveyors to the bunkers. The

coal is transferred from the bunkers through pulverizers to further reduce the coal size and then

blown into the boilers .

Particulate matter less than 2 .5 microns in aerodynamic diameter .

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

* * * *

RECEIVED,

* PCB 2006-156

CLERK'S

*

OFFICE,

* * * *APRIL

7, 2006

4.

Historically, emissions from the bunkers have been controlled by baghouses or

rotoclones with water spray

. The construction permit that Midwest Generation is appealing here

was issued to permit the construction and operation of wet dust extractor control devices,

installed as replacements of the rotoclones. The dust extractor creates a negative pressure inside

the coal bunkers so that dust-laden air created Irorn drops from the conveyors and from

withdrawal of coal from the bunkers is captured . The dust/airhvater mixture passes through a

mesh panel, which separates the dust particles i n the air stream .

5

.

The Agency received Midwest Generation's application for the construction

permit on February 2, 2006

. Midwest Generation required the construction permit so that it

could install wet dust extractors during the planned outage that was to begin March 4, 2006

.

During its discussions with the Agency regarding the construction permit, Midwest Generation

learned that the Agency intended to include provisions that mirrored language that has been

appealed in the CAAPP permit issued to Will County . Midwest Generation alerted the Agency

to this already-appealed language, but the Agency persisted in including such language in the

construction permit . See Exhibit 2, attached hereto .

II

. EFFECTIVENESS OF PERMIT

6.

Pursuant to Section 10-65(b) of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act

("APA"), 5 ILCS 100/10-65, and the holding in Borg-Warner Corp

. v . Mauzy, 427 N

.E . 2d 415

(III.App

.Ct . 1981) ("Borg-Warner"), the construction permit issued by the Agency to Will

County is not effective by operation of law until after a ruling by the Board on the permit appeal

and, in the event of a remand, until the Agency has issued the permit consistent with the Board's

order . See Order, Midwest Generation, tIC, Will County Generating Station v

. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 06-060 (February 26, 2006) ("Order 2") . In Order 2, the

-3-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Board recognized . however, that it may grant a stay of less than the entirety of an appealed

permit if the permittee so requests . Order 2 at p . 8, fn 3 . Historically, the Board has granted

partial stays in permit appeals where a petitioner has so requested . C.f Hartford Working Group

v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 05-74 (November 18, 2004) (granted stay of

the effectiveness of Special Condition 2 .0 of an air construction permit)

;

Community Landfill

Company and City ofMorris v

. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 01-48 and 01-49

(Consolidated) (October 19, 2000) (granted stay of effectiveness of challenged conditions for

two permits of two parcels of the landfill) ;

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp . v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 96-108 (December 7 . 1995) (granted stay of the

effectiveness of Conditions 4(a), 5(a),

and 7)a) of an air permit) .

7 .

As discussed below, the Agency has included in the construction permit language

that Midwest Generation is appealing at Docket 06-060

. Midwest Generation understands that

the operating conditions included in the construction permit will roll into the CAAPP permit

when it becomes effective, See Exhibit 1, Condition 11

. Midwest Generation will suffer

irreparable harm if this language is allowed to remain in the construction permit for inclusion,

ultimately, in the CAAPP permit if the Board finds, in Docket 06-060, that the language should

be struck from the CAAPP permit

. Moreover, Midwest Generation would suffer irreparable

harm if it were required to comply now, through the construction permit, with conditions that the

Board may determine, in Docket 06-060, are inappropriate

. Inclusion of such language in the

construction permit effectively denies Midwest Generation its statutory right to its appeal of the

CAAPP permit unless the Board stays the contested language .

8.

Moreover, Midwest Generation will suffer irreparable harm and the environment

will not receive the benefit of the improved pollution control devices if Midwest Generation is

-4-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

not allowed to construct and operate the wet dust extractor system on the coal bunkers for Units

3 and 4 at the Will County Generating Station

. The Agency has issued permits for the

construction and operation of the same equipment for Midwest Generation's Crawford and

Powerton Generating Stations without the contested language included

. See Exhibits 3 and 4,

attached hereto

. Midwest Generation's request for stay of the contested language would result in

a construction permit that is effectively the same as those for the Crawford and Powerton

Generating Stations, thus providing the necessary and appropriate authorizations to install and

operate the equipment in a manner to protect the environment

.

9 .

Midwest Generation requests in this instance that the Board exercise its inherent

discretionary authority to grant a partial stay of the construction permit, staying only the

contested conditions

: Conditions 2,

5(a)(i), 5(a)(ii)(B), 5(b)(i), 6(a)(i)(A), 6(a)(ii)(A), 6(b), 7(a),

7(d)(ii), 7(d)(vii),

9(a), 9(a)(ii), 9(b)(i)(A), and

9(b)(ii)

.

III. ISSUES ON APPEAL

(35 111 .Adm .Code §§

105 .210(c))

10.

Midwest Generation appealed various conditions in the CAAPP permit applicable

to coal handling, including conditions containing language that has reappeared in the

construction permit issued to Will County

. The construction permit allows for operation of the

new equipment until such time as an operating permit issued to Will County becomes effective

.

See Exhibit l, Condition 11

. In essence, then, the construction permit is also, at least

temporarily, an operating permit

. In issuing the construction permit, the Agency is attempting to

impose operating conditions through the construction permit that have been appealed in the

context of the CAAPP permit appeal prior to the Board's decision on these points

. Additionally,

the Agency is inappropriately imposing the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") for

Coal Handling, 40 CFR 60.Suhpart

Y ("Subpart Y") (attached hereto with additional pertinent

-5-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

provisions from 40 CPR 60

.Subpart A as Exhibit 5 for the Board's convenience), through the

construction permit .

A.

The Agency Has

Inappropriately Imposed Language in the Construction Permit

That Was Appealed in PCB 06-060 (Will County

CAAPP

Appeal) and Has Included

Other Inappropriate Conditions in the Construction Permit

.

11 .

In this situation where ultimately the operating permit will be the CAAPP permit,

3

that the Agency included in the construction permit language appealed in the CAAPP permit in

Docket 06-060 ignores Midwest Generation's right to challenge and have a fair hearing on the

appropriateness of the language in the CAAPP permit

. The implication of the language is that

the operating conditions identified in the construction permit will become the applicable

operating conditions during operation pursuant to the construction permit and eventually in the

CAAPP permit, even though that language is currently being challenged in the CAAPP Appeal

.

Inclusion of such language forces Midwest Generation into this second appeal in order to

preserve the integrity of

its appeal of the CAAPP permit, as well as to prevent the imposition

of

inappropriate conditions in the construction permit, the state operating permit, and ultimately the

CAAPP permit

. It undermines the Board's authority to determine whether challenged language

is appropriate through the statutory process established in the Act by the General Assembly

. If

the Board determines that the challenged language is appropriate, then the language will become

applicable to the equipment at the time that the CAAPP permit becomes effective, as the

language is already in the CAAPP permit

. If the Board determines that the challenged language

3

The draft permit reviewed by Midwest Generation provided that the construction permit would

remain in effect until a CAAPP permit became effective

. The reference was changed to an operating

permit in Condition 11 of the final construction permit

. Regardless, the coal bunkers and their control

devices are included in Section 7

.2 of the CAAPP permit, and these new wet dust extractors will be

addressed by the CAAPP permit eventually

. Even if

Midwest Generation must seek an operating permit

for the wet dust extractors during the pendency

of

the CAAPP appeal, the Agency will, at some point in

time

. have to roll it into the CAAPP permit

.

-6-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

is not appropriate, then the Agency will have undermined that decision by including the language

in this construction permit (unless it is appealed)

. which would be rolled into the CAAPP permit

upon termination of the CAAPP appeal process under Docket 06-060

. Meanwhile, if Midwest

Generation did not appeal the construction permit, the challenged language would apply during

the operation phase of the construction permit

. The challenged language has no more stature

when included in the construction permit than it did in the CAAPP permit .

12 .

Regardless of one's perspective, the Agency's inclusion of the challenged

language during the pendency of the appeal of Will County's CAAPP permit is inappropriate

.

injurious to Midwest Generation's rights under Sections 39 . 39 .5, and 40 .2 of the Act and under

the APA, subversive and disrespectful of the Board's Order 2 in PCB 06-060 regarding the

applicability of the APA to appealed permits, and not in good faith .

(i)

Inspection Requirements - Condition 5(a)(i)

13 .

Condition 7.2

.8(a) of the CAAPP permit issued to Midwest Generation for the

Will County Generating Station contains inspection requirements for the coal handling

operations at the plant. Both Condition 7 .2.8(a)

of the CAAPP Permit and Condition 5(a)(i)

of

the construction permit require that "[t)hese inspections shall be performed with personnel not

directly involved in the day-to [sic] day operation of the affected operations . . . ." These

inspection requirements were appealed in Docket No . 06-060 at paragraphs 116-1 17 of Midwest

Generation's Appeal of CAAPP Permit ("CAAPP Appeal"), and Midwest Generation is

compelled to appeal them again here with respect to the construction permit .

14 .

In addition to the apparent attempt to undermine the appeal process initiated for

the CAAPP permit, the Agency again provides no basis for this requirement

. There is no basis in

law or practicality for this provision

. To identify in a construction permit condition who can

perform an inspection is overstepping the Agency's authority .

-7-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

15 .

The requirement must be stricken from the permit . Midwest Generation requests

that the Board stay Condition 5(a)(i) during the pendency of this appeal .

(ii)

Inspection Requirements - Condition

5(a)(ii)(B)

16.

Condition

7.2

.9(d)(i)(B) of the CAAPP permit requires that Midwest Generation

observe whether there are accumulations of coal fines in the vicinity of the coal bunkers . This

condition was included in the CAAPP Appeal at paragraphs 129-130 . This requirement appears

also in the construction permit at Condition 5(a)(ii)(B) despite the fact that it is under appeal in

Docket No . 06-060.

17.

There is no applicable requirement that Midwest Generation observe whether coal

fines are present . Rather, Midwest Generation is required to develop and implement a fugitive

dust plan pursuant to 35 III

.Adm .Code § 212.309(a) and to periodically update it pursuant to §

212

.312

. If the permittee does not comply with its fugitive dust plan or the Agency finds that the

fugitive dust plan is not adequate, there are procedures and remedies available to the Agency to

address the issue_ However, the Agency cannot supplement a fugitive dust plan, which is the

regulatorily-required control mechanism, through a permit where there are no specific

regulations addressing the particular issue, here coal fines .

18.

Condition 5(a)(ii)(B)

should be deleted from the permit, and Midwest Generation

requests that the Board grant a stay of this condition during the pendency of this appeal

.

(iii)

Inspection Requirements - Condition

5(b)(i)

19 .

Conditions 7,2

.8(b) of the appealed CAAPP permit requires that inspections of

coal handling be conducted every 15 months while the process is not operating . Midwest

Generation appealed this requirement in the CAAPP Appeal (see paragraphs 118, 120, 122), yet

the same language appears in Condition 5(b)(i) of the construction permit

. This is another

-8-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

example of the Agency's attempt to undermine the CAAPP appeal process and to deny Petitioner

its statutorily-granted right to an appeal

.

20

.

In any given area of the station, station personnel arc constantly alert to any

"abnormal" operations during the course of the day

. Although these are not formal inspections

.

they are informal inspections and action is taken to address any "abnormalities" observed as

quickly as possible

. Midwest Generation's best interests are to run its operations as efficiently

and safely as possible

. It appears that these conditions are administrative compliance traps for

work that is done as part of the normal activities at the station

.

21 .

The Agency has not indicated why this particular frequency for inspections is

appropriate

. Essentially, the Agency is creating an outage schedule, as these processes are

intricately linked to the operation of the boilers

. As the construction permit requires these

particular inspections when the equipment is not operating, and as the equipment would not

operate during an outage of the boiler, it is not necessary for the Agency to dictate the frequency

of the operations

. Rather, it is logical that these inspections should be linked to planned boiler

outages

. Further, the normal inspection frequency for this equipment while it is operating, which

is more often than every 15 months, means any maintenance issues will be identified long before

the 15- month inspections required by this condition would occur

.

22 .

Condition 5(b)(i)

should be stricken from the permit, and Midwest Generation

requests that the Board stay Condition

5(b)(i)

during the pendency of this appeal.

(iv)

Testing Requirements -

Condition 6(b)

23 .

The Agency requires stack testing of the wet dust extractor system in accordance

with Method 5 in Condition 6(b).

This requirement was appealed in the CAAPP appeals for

other Midwest Generation generating stations

. C .f_ paragraph I l 1 of the Appeal of CAAPP

Permit, Crawford Generating Station, Docket No

. 06-056. That the language was not appealed

-9-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

in the Will County CAAPP permit appeal, as it was not an issue in Will County CAAPP permit,

does not relieve the Agency of its responsibility to respect Midwest Generation's statutory right

to appeal the CAAPP permits and still has the effect of undermining the appeal process pending

before the Board .

24 .

A part of complying with Method 5 is complying with Method 1, which

establishes the physical parameters necessary to test

. Midwest Generation cannot comply with

Method I for the wet dust extractor system . The stacks for sources such as wetting systems are

narrow and not structurally built to accommodate testing ports and platforms for stack testing

.

The particulate matter

("PM") emissions for these types of pollution control devices are very

low . Inspection, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements are the only feasible methods to

assure compliance and are sufficient to assure compliance .

25.

Condition 6(h) should be deleted from the permit, and Midwest Generation

requests that the Board stay Condition 6(b) during the pendency of this appeal

.

(v)

Recordkeeping Requirements - Conditions 7(d)(ii) and (vii)

26.

Condition 7(d)(ii) requires Midwest Generation to provide the magnitude of PM

emissions during an incident where the coal handling operation continues without the use of

control measures . Midwest Generation has established that it has no means to measure exact PM

emissions from the coal bunkers or wet dust extractors

. Therefore, for the Agency to require

reporting of the magnitude of PM emissions is inappropriate

. Midwest Generation appealed the

requirement to provide the magnitude of PM emissions in the Will County CAAPP Appeal . See

paragraph 127 in the CAAPP Appeal

. Midwest Generation requests that the Board stay

Condition 7(d)(ii) during the pendency of this appeal .

27.

Condition 7(d)(vii) refers to Condition

2(b), which Midwest Generation has

appealed here. Therefore, because of the connection of Condition 7(d)(vii) with Condition

2(b),

-10-

---

Midwest Generation also appeals Condition 7(d)(vii) and requests that the Board stay this

condition.

(vi) Reporting/Notification

9(b)(i)(A), and 9(b)(ii)

Requirements

- Conditions 9(a), 9(a)(ii),

28.

Condition 9(a) requires Midwest Generation to report deviations from the

requirements of the construction permit

. Deviation reporting is not required by Illinois'

regulations and is, rather, a construct of CAAPP permitting

. The construction permit is not a

CAAPP permit . CAAPP permit conditions, including deviation reporting, will apply to the wet

dust extractors when the CAAPP permit becomes effective, Applying CAAPP requirements in

this construction permit is inappropriate and should he stricken from the permit

. Midwest

Generation requests that the Board stay Condition 9(a) during the pendency of this appeal

.

29.

Condition 9(a)(ii) requires notification of operation without customary control

measures or with excess emissions

. To the extent that this required reporting is not deviation

reporting, as appealed in Condition 9(a) above, operation without control equipment should he

required only when there are excess emissions, as it is not always the case that operation without

the control equipment would result in excess emissions

. The word or should he and . This

requirement was appealed in the Will County CAAPP Appeal at paragraph 133, again raising the

question of the Agency's good faith in including appealed conditions in the construction permit

.

Condition 9(a)(ii) should be deleted from the permit, trod Midwest Generation requests that the

Board stay the condition during the pendency of this appeal

.

30 .

Condition 9(b)(i)(A) reflects Condition

7.2.10(b)(i)(A) in the Will County

CAAPP permit, a condition which was appealed in CAAPP Appeal at paragraphs 134-135

. The

Agency requires reporting when the opacity limitation

tnay

have been exceeded . That a

limitation may

have been exceeded does not rise to the level of an actual exceedance

. Midwest

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Generation believes that it is beyond the scope of the Agency's authority to require reporting of

suppositions of exceedances .

31 .

Additionally . the Agency requires in this condition reporting if opacity exceeded

the limit for "five or more 6-minute averaging periods ." The next sentence in the condition says,

"(Otherwise . .

. . for not more than five consecutive 6-minute averaging periods . . . .") The

language in the condition is internally inconsistent . First, the word consecutive should appear

before "6-minute averaging periods" in the first instance quoted above . Otherwise, the reporting

could be triggered by any five random six-minute averaging periods of opacity greater than the

limitation

. Moreover, the omission of the word consecutive in the first instance is inconsistent

with its inclusion in the second instance quoted above. Midwest Generation believes the second

instance, using the word consecutive, is correct

. At the least, there should be an outside

timeframe during which the five six-minute opacity averages exceed the limitation before

reporting is required . Second, one cannot tell whether five six-minute averaging periods of

excess opacity readings do or do not require reporting.

32 .

Condition 9(b)(i)(A)

is ambiguous and has been appealed in the CAAPP Appeal .

It was inappropriate for the Agency to include the condition in the construction permit, and it

should be struck or appropriately clarified

. Midwest Generation requests that the Board stay

Condition 9(b)(i)(A)

during the pendency of this appeal .

33 .

Condition 9(b)(ii) requires quarterly reporting, a frequency that is a function of

the CAAPP and not of Illinois' regulations applicable to the source prior to the effectiveness of

the CAAPP permit

. Also, Condition 9(b)(ii)(B) refers to Condition 9(a), appealed herein .

Therefore, Condition 9(b)(ii) should be deleted from the permit, and Midwest Generation

requests that the Board stay the condition during the pendency of this appeal .

-12-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

* * * *

RECEIVED,

* PCB 2006-156

CLERK'S

*

OFFICE,

* * * *APRIL

7, 2006

B.

The Agency Has Inappropriately Determined that the NSPS for Coal Preparation

Plants, 40 CFR 60 .Subpart Y Applies (Conditions 2, 6(a)(i)(A) and (ii)(A), and 7(a))

.

34 .

The Agency has inappropriately imposed conditions in the construction permit

based upon its determination that the replacement of the rotoclones with the wet dust extractors

causes the coal hunkers to become subject to the NSPS for Coal Preparation Plants at 40 CFR

60.Subpart Y, attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . In order for the NSPS to apply to the bunkers, there

must have been a modification of the bunkers after October 24, 1974

. 40 CFR § 60

.250(b) .

However, there has been no modification of the bunkers that would trigger the applicability of

Subpart Y .

35 .

The NSPS defines modification as follows :

any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of,

an existing facility which increases the amount of any air

pollutant (to which a standard applies) emitted into the

atmosphere by that facility or which results in the emission of any

air pollutant (to which a standard applies) into the atmosphere not

previously emitted

.

40 CPR § 60 .2, attached in part hereto as Exhibit 5

. The term modification is further clarified at

40 CFR § 60 .14(e)(5) :

The following shall not, by themselves, be considered

modifications under this part :

(5)

The addition or use of any system or device whose

primary function is the reduction of air pollutants, except

when an emission control system is removed or is

replaced by a system which the Administrator determines

to be less environmentally beneficial,

40 CFR § 60 .14(e)(5), attached hereto as Exhibit 5

. (Emphasis added)

. Because the wet dust

extractors are devices whose primary function is the reduction of air pollutants and because they

are not (nor have they been determined to he) less environmentally beneficial than the

-13-

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

rotoclones, whether a modification, as defined at § 60

.2 of the NSPS occurred, is a question that

is never reached

. Because there was no modification, Subpart Y does not apply and cannot be

included in the construction permit

. All references to the requirements

of Subpart Y must be

deleted from the permit.

36.

Note that while the emissions limitation may he measured as the emissions exit

the pollution control device, the only equipment to which Subpart Y can apply is to the coal

storage system, defined as "any facility used to store coal except for open storage piles

." 40

CFR § 60 .251(h), Exhibit 5

. An affected facility is "with reference to a stationary source, any

apparatus to which a standard is applicable

." 40 CPR § 60 .2, Exhibit 5

. USEPA Region 5 states

that "all coal storage equipment is treated collectively as one affected facility

. . . ." Applicability

Determination, Control No

. 0300127 (June 30, 2003), p

. 3, attached hereto as Exhibit 6 . The

system is all of the bunkers

. The definition does not imply that the system includes more than

the actual storage facilities,

i .e.,

the bunkers and not the pollution control device

.

37 .

Condition 2 of the construction permit provides that Subpart Y is applicable to the

wet dust extractor system

. Conditions 6(a)(i)(A)

and 6(a)(ii)(A)

reflect Subpart Y requirements

.

Condition 7(a) applies the NSPS recordkeeping requirements

. All of

these conditions must be

struck from the permit, and Midwest Generation requests that the Board stay their applicability

during the pendency of the permit appeal

.

---

Dated : April 7, 2006

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

Sheldon A. Zabel

Kathleen C . Bassi

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Kavita M

. Patel

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-2600

CH7. 118 , 445 .2

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above

. Midwest Generation requests that the

Board grant its petition to appeal the construction permit issued March 3, 2006, and that it stay

the conditions appealed herein .

Respectfully submitted,

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION

by :

i. .L.-/-jai/

~1n

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit No .

1

Construction permit

2

Email correspondence between Constantelos and Romaine

3

Crawford construction permit

4

Powerton construction permit

5

NSPS Portions of40 CFR .Subpart A and the Entirety of Subpart Y,

NNw- w .ecfr.gpoacecss .gov (2005)

6

Applicability Determination. Control No_ 0300127 ( .June 30, 2003)

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Exhibit 1

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12:43 PM

IEPA

BOA

FAX NO,

2177822465

P . 02

11 LINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

. PRMECTIoN AGENCY

I D21 NOKM GRAND AV*NUE EACL

P .O . 0nx 19506,

Sraw(l n.LU, ILLINOIS 62794 ..'1606 - (217) 782-2113

R01) R . NLAGoJLVIcI I,

COVLRNOP

DOUGLAS P . SCOT T, OIRLCFOK

217)782-2113

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

PEIUIITTEE

t43dwest

. Generation }IMH:, LI,C

Attn, Andrea Crapioi

440 South L

.,'!Salle Street, Suite 3500

Chicago, Illinoi3 60605

Apgl

t 06020009

nppli

I .D . No

. : 197R10AAK

Deli natiotu

Date Received : February 2, 2006

$uY»e

CE Duu

.stst

Extractors for Unit 3 and Unit %1 Coa-

IPunkcrc

bate' -ISCucd :

March 3, 2006

Location ;

will

County Generating Station, 529 East 135" Street, Romoovillo,

Permit ir

. hereby granted to the above-designated Pernittee to CONSTRUCT

mission scu.rco(s)

and/or air pollution control equipment consisting of new

wet duoL extractor control devices for the Unit 3 and Unit 4 coal bunkers, an

doscrthed in the above referenced application

. This Permit is subject to

ntandrrd conditions attached hereto and the following special condition(c) :

1.

This permit authorizes installation of new particulate matter control

equipment on the coal bunkers for Unit 3 and Unit 4,, replacing the

existing) RotOclone control devices, as requested by the Permittee to

impr.ovo

safety and operational performance

. Yor the purpose of this

permit, the -affected operations' are the coal bunkers for Unit 3 and

Unit 4 R'ollowing installation of the new, air pollution control

equipment

.

2a .

The affected operations Are subject to the New Source Performance

Stond

:.ir(Is (NSPS) for Coal Preparation Plants, 40 CFR 60 Subpart

Y .

This requirement in being imposed because coal is prepared at the

source and the application did not demonstrate that the changes in the

control equipment would not be modifications,

i,e ., the hourly

particulate matter omissions from the coal bunkers would not increase

with the new air pollution control equipment .

h .

t

The opacity of the exhaust into the atmosphere from each affected

operation shall not be 20 percent or greater, pursuant to the

NSPS, 40 CFR 60 .252 .

Notwithstanding the above, as provided by 40 CFR 60

.8(c), opacity

in excess of the above limit during periods of startup, shutdown

and malfunction, as defined by 40 CFR 60

.2, shall not be

considered a violation .

c .

At all timer, tho affected operations shall be operated in accordance

with good air pollution control practice, as required by 40 CFR

60 .11(d),

3n .

Pursuant to 35 I:AC

212,123(a), the emission of smoke or other

particulate matter from each affected operation shall not exceed an

I' I N at, on

RCCYC'LLU PArut

EXHIBIT 1

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12 :43 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO

. 2177822465

P. 03

Pagc2

opacity greater than 30 percent, on six-minute average, except as

allowed by 35 i7,C 217„7,73 (b) and 7,12

.17.4 .

b,

subject to the following terms and conditions, the Permittee is

authorized to continue operation of an affected operation in violation

of the applicable limit of Condition 3(a) (35 IAC 212 .123) in the event

of n malfunction or breakdown . This authorization is provided pursuant

to 35 IAC 201 .7.49,

201

.161 and 201 .262, as the Pormittec has applied

for such authorization in its application, generally explaining why

such continued operation would be required to provide essential service

or to prevent injury to porsonnol or severe damage to equipment, and

describing the measures that vial he token to minimize emissions from

any malfunctions and breakdowns .

'this authorization only allows such continued operation an

related to the operation of the Unit 3 and Unit 4 boilers as

necessary to provide essential service or to prevent injury to

personnel. or severe damage to equipment and does not extend to

continued operation solely for the economic benefit of the

permittee .

ii .

Upon

breakdown,

occurrence

the Pcrmof

excess

.ittoo shall

emissions

ns soon

due

as

to

practicable

malfunction

repair

or

the

affected operation . remove the affected operation from service or

undertake other action no that excess emissions cease

.

iii

.

. 'ho Permictee -, hall fulfill applicable recordkeeping and

reporting roquircmcunts of conditions 7(e) and

9(b), respectively .

i.v .

Following notification to the Illinois EPA of, a malfunction or

breakdown with excess emissions, the Perntittee shall comply with

all reasonable directives of the Illinois EPA with respect to

ouch incident, pursuant to 35 IAC 201 .263 .

This authorization does not relieve the Permittee from the

continuing obligation to minimize excess emissions during

malfunction or breakdown

. As provided by 35 IAC 201 .265, an

authorization in a permit for continued operation with excess

omissions during malfunction and breakdown does not shield the

Penmittee from enforcement for any such violation and only

constitutos a prima facie defense to such an enforcement action

provided that the perm

:ittee has fully complied with all terms and

conditions connected with such authorization,

malfunction

addressing

Note

: These

the

or

provisions

breakdown

a££ectnd

addrossinp

operationsevent

may

.

continued

be revised

operation

in an operating

during apermit

4n .

afiocted

Particulate

not

. exceed

operation

1mattor

.7 pounds/hour

shall

emissions

not

and

exceed

from

7.6

the

tone/year

1.6

Unit

pounds/hour

3 affected

and from

and

operation

the

7.1

Unit

tons/year,4shall

b .

Notwithstanding the above, in the event of a malfunction or breakdown,

the particulato matter omissions from the unit 3 and Unit 4 eCfeoted

operations may exceed 1,7 end 1 .6 pounds/hour, respectively, subject to

the terms and conditions eotablisherl in Condition 3(b) for an

exccodanco

broakd')Wn .

of 35 IAC 212

.123(a) in the event of malfunction or

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12 :44 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO

. 2177822465

P . 04

Page 3

Sa .

The

pennittee shall perform inspections of the affected

operations at least once per month, including the associated

control mosaures, while the affocted operations are in use, to

confirm compliance with the requirements of this permit

. Those

inspections shall be performed with personnel not directly

involved in the day-to day oporation of the affected operations,

The Permittee shall maintain records of the following for the

above inspections

:

A .

Date and time the inspection was porformed and names) of

inspection porsonnel

.

5 .

The observed condition of the control measures for the

affected operations, including the presence of nny visible

emissions or accumulations of coal fine,, in the vicinity of

an operation .

C .

A description of any maintenance or repair associated with

the control measures chat is recommended as a result of the

inspection and a review of outstanding recommendations for

maintenance or repair from previous inspection(s),

i .o .,

whether recommended action has beer

. taken, is yet to be

performed or no longer appears to be required

.

A summary of the observed implementation or status of

actual control measures as compared to the customary

control measures .

b .

The Permittee shall perform detailed inspections of the control

equipment for each affected operation at least every 15 months

while the operation is out of service, with an initial inspection

performed before any maintenance and repair activities are

conducted during the period the operation is out of service and a

follow-up inspection performed after any such activities arc

completed .

The t'ermittee shall maintain records of the following for the

above inspections :

A .

Date and time the inspection was performed and namc(o) of

inspection personnel

.

H .

The observed condition of the control equipment

.

C .

A seminary of the maintenance and repair that is to be or

was conducted on the control equipment

.

D .

A description of any maintenance or repair that is

recommended as a result of the inspection and a review of

outstanding recommmendationc for maintenance or repair from

previous inspection(s), i

.e . ,

whether recommended action

has been taken, is yet to be performed or no longer appears

to be required .

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12

:45 P11

]EPA RCA

FAX NO

. 2177822465

P, 05

Pogo 4

A

.summary of the observed condition of the control

equipment as related to its ability to reliably and

ottoctivoly control emissions

.

6a,

The Permittee shall have the opacity of the emissions from the

affected operations during representative weather and operating

conditions determined by a qualified observer in accordance with

USEPA Test Method 9, as further specified below .

A .

For each affected operation, an initial performance test

60shell

.252

be

following

conducted

installation

in accordance

of

with

the new

40 CFR

control

60.8

equipmentand

.

B .

Following the initial performance test, periodic cesCing

shall be conducted at least annually for each affected

opernr,ion

.

C .

Upon written request by the Illinois EPA, testing of the

affected Operations shall be conducted within 45 calendar

days of the rogue,^,t or on the date agreed upon by the

Illinois EPA, whichever is later .

ii .

A .

The initial performance tests for opacity shalll be

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60 .254 .

For periodic tenting, the duration of opacity observations

shall be at least 30 minutes (five 6-minute averages)

unless the average opacities for the first 12 minutes of

observations (two six-minute averages) are both less than

10 .0 percent .

iii .

The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA at least 7 days

in advance of the date and time of these tents, in order to

allow the Illinois YPA to witness testing, Thin

notification shall include the name(s) and employer(s) of

the qualified observor(s),

P .

changesThe

Permittee

in the

shall

time

promptly

or data for

notify

testingthe .

Illinois EPA of any

iv,

The I'armtrtoo shall provide o copy of its observer's readings to

the Illinois EPA at the time of testing, if Illinois EPA

poreonnol are present .

v .

within

The

includePermittee

1

:

.5 days

shall

of the

submit

date

a

of

written

testingreport

. Thin

for

report

this

shalltooting

A . Date and time of

: testing .

D

. Namo and employer of qualified observer .

C . Copy of current certification .

D . Description of obsetvacr.on

condition, including recent weather

.

Descrai:ption

of the operating conditions of the affected Operations

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12

:45 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO

. 2177822465

P. 06

Page 5

F

.

Raw rigid .

G

. opacity dotorminationn

.

h . Conclusion . .

b,

within 90 days of a written rcguc;t

from the Illinois EPA,

the

Permittec

:hall have the particulate matter emissions at the

stacks or vents of the affected operations, as specified in such

request, meusurod during representative operating conditions, as

set forth below .

i .i . .

A .

testing shall he conducted using appropriate

USEPA

Reference Test Methods, including Method 5 for particulate

matter 0minsions .

n .

compliance may be determined from the average of three

valid test runs, subject to the limitations and conditions

contained in 35 IAC Part 283 .

I iThe

Permitcee

stall submit a test plan

to the Illinois

EPA at

least 60 days prior to testing in accordance with 35

IAC Part

283 .

iv .

The xllinoia

EPA

shall be notified prior to these tests to enable

the Illinois EPA to observe those tests

. Notification of the

oxpoctad date of testing shall be submitted a minimum of 30 days

prior to the expected date

. Notification of the actual date and

expected time of testing shall be submitted a minimum of 5

working days prior to the actual date of the test

. The Illinois

EPA

may, at its discretion, accept notification with shorter

advance notice provided that the Illinois EPA will not accept

such notification if it interferes with the Illinois

EPA's

ability to observe the tasting .

V-

The Pormittee sba1.1 expeditiousl

.y submit complete Yinal Reports)

for roqu.ired

emission testing to the Illinois EPA, no later than

90 days after the date of testing

. These reports shall include

the following information

;

A .

A summary of results .

B .

Detailed description of test mothod(s), including

dc:'.scripti.on

of sampling points, sampling train, analysis

equipment, and test schedule .

C .

Detailed

nfCocted

description

process during

of

tenting,

the operating

including

conditions

operating

of therate

(tons/hr) and the control measures being used

.

'The date and time of the sampling or measurements ;

The date any analyses wore pertormed ;

The nnmc of the company that performed the rests and/or

analyses ;

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12 :46 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO. 2177822465

P . 07

Fags 6

C' .

'che detailed results of the

tests including raw data,

H .

and/or analyses including sample calculations

;

The(ISIPA

sourcetooting

name

.

representativescompany's

of any relevantrepresentatives,

. and

observers

the representatives

any

presentIllinois

includingof

EPA

theorthe

The Forriittcc shall fulfill the applicable recordkeeping requirements

of the NSVS, 40 Chi

60 .7(;), for the affected operations .

The Permittee shall keep the following file(s) and log(s) for the air

pollution control equipment for the affected operations,

i

supporting

rile(s) containing

information,

the following

which

file(s)data

forshall

, the

be

equipment,

kept up to

withdate

:

1) The design particulate matter control efficiency or

performance

qr/clscf

; 2)

specification

The maximum design

for particulate

emission rate,

matter

pounds

emissions,particulate

matter/hour, and 3) The applicable particulate matter emission

Eactor normally used by the Permittee to calculate actual

particulate matter emissions, if a factor other than the maximum

hourly emission race is normally used .

cr{uipment,

Maintenance

10q(s) shall

with

and

list

repair

date

the

and

activities

log(s)

descriptionfor

performed

the

.

control

on

equipment,

each item ofwhich

c .

'Phc Perni

.tcee shall maintain records for the amount of material

handled, operating hours, or other measure of activity of each affected

operation on a monthly and annual basis, which data is in the terms

normally used by the Permittee to calculate actual emissions of each

affected operation .

d .

The Permittec shall maintain records of the following for each incident

when an afroctod operation operated without the customary control

treasurer

;

The

operation

date of

that

the

was

incident

J.nvolvedand

.

identification of the affected

i

A description of the incident, including the customary control

control

and

mcanuros

measures

incidentthe

magnitude

measures

.

that

or mitigation

were

that

of

not

the

were

present

measures

particulate

present,

or

that

implementedif

matter

were

anyimplemented,

;

emissions

other

; the

controlcustomaryduring

if anythe

;

iii

The rime at and means by which the incident was identified,

e.g.,

scheduled inspection or observation by operating porsonnol

.

iv .

The length of time after the incident was identified that the

affected operations continued to operate before customary control

measures were in place or the operations were shutdown (to resume

operation only after customary control measures wore in place)

send, if this time was more than one hour, an explanation why this

time was not shorter, including a description of any mitigation

measures that were implemented during the incident

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12 :46 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO . 2177822465

P . 08

Paf07

v .

estimated total duration of the incident,

i .e., the total

length of time that the affected operations rnn without customary

control measures and the estimated amount of material handled

during the incident

.

vi .

11 discus^ion of the probable cause of the incident and any

p

roventnti.v e measures taken,

v r

A discussion whether an applicable standard, as listed in

Condition 2(b) or 3(a) or a particulate matter emission

!imitation in Condition 4(a) may have been violated during the

incident, with an estimate of the amount of any additional or

excess particulate matter emissions (pounds) from the incident,

with supporting explanation .

Pursuant Lv 35 IAC 201 .263, the Pormittcn shall maintain records,

related to malfunction and breakdown for each affected operation that,

at a minimum, shell include :

I

Maintenance and repair log(s) for the affected operation that, at

a minimum, address aspects or components of such operations for

which malfunction or breakdown has resulted in excess emissions,

which shall list the activities performed on such aspects or

components, with date, description and reason for the activity .

i n

addition, in the maintenance and repair log(s), the Permittee

shall also list the reason for the activities that arc performed

.

Records

; for each incident when operation of an affected operation

continued during malfunction or breakdown, including continued

opnrat .ion with exccac emissions as addressed by condition

3(a),

that include the following information ;

A.

sate and duration of malfunction or breakdown .

B

.

A description of the malfunction or breakdown .

C .

The corrective actions used to reduce the quantity of

emissions and the duration of rho incident .

r7 .

Confirmation of fulfillment of the requirements of Condition

9(b)(i), as applicable, including copies of follow-up

reports submitted pursuant to Condition 9(b)(i)(B) .

P: .

If exceoa emissions occurred for two or more hours :

I .

A detailed explanation why continued operation of the

affected operation was nocessary .

IT . A dctailr,*d explanation of the preventative measures

planned or taken to prevent similar malfunctions or

breakdowns or reduce their frequency and severity .

III . An

occurring

estimate

during

of the

themagnitude

incident

of

.

excess emissions

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12

:47 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO

. 2177822465

P. 09

Page B

The Pcrmiittee shall maintain the following records for the parciculatc

with

matter

supporting

emissions

calculationsfrom

each affected

.

operation (tons/month and tons/yr),

g The

by

raw

including

Method

t'ctmitteedata,

9

results,

name

that

shall

of

the

the

and

keep

Prrmobserver,

conclusionrecords

..itteo conducts

date

for

.

and

any

or

timeopacity

are

.

conducted

duration

observations

of

at

observation,its

performedbehest,

The

copying

source

shall

Permittee

he

for

upon

readily

at

roqucst,shall

least

accessible

retain

5 years

all

to

from

the

records

the

Illinois

date

requiredof

}'TA

entry

byfor

and

this

inspection

these

permit

recordsandat

the

3a .

The Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois EPA of deviations from

requirements

Rich noti .ficatiof

.ons

this

shall

permit

include

for the

o description

affected operations,

of each incidcne

as followsand

.

a

dizcussion of the probable cause of deviation, any corrective actions

taken, and any prcventntive measures taken,

i .

Noti .fi

.cation and roporting as specified in Condition 9(b) (i) for

certain deviations from an applicable opacity standard,

ii

.

Notification within 30 days for operation of an affected

operation without customary control measures or with emissions in

excess of the applicable hourly limitation in Condition 9(a) that

was

continued

identifiedfor

more

. Such

than

notifications

12 operating

shall

hours

he

from

accompanied

the time that

by ait

copy

7(a)(ii)of

the

.

records for the incident required by Condition

iii . A .

Notification with the quarterly reports required by

Condition 9(b)(ii) for other deviations, including

deviations from applicable emission standards, inspection

requirements and recordkeeping requirements .

D,

With the quarterly report, the Permittee shall also address

deviations that occurred during the quarter that have been

resubmit

such

ceDaratcly

deviationsthe

reported

detailed

. For

to

this

information

the

purpose,

Illinois

provided

the

EPA,

Permittee

with

in priora

summary

need notof

notifications and reports for such deviations

.

b .

Pursuant to 35 TAO 201

.263, the Permittee shall provide the following

notifications and reports to the Illinois EPA, concerning incidents

when operation of an affected operation continued with excess

omissions, including continued operation during malfunction or

breakdown as addre sed by Condition 3(b)

.

A .

'fhe Permittee shall immediately notify the Illinois EPA's

Regional otfico, by telephone (voice, facsimile or electronic)

for each incident in which the opacity from an affected

operation

standard

(otherwise,

forexceeds

.

it

five

opacity

or

or

may

more

during

have

6-minute

exceeded

a malfunction

averaging

the applicable

or

Poribreakdown.ods

.

opacity

Incident only exceeds or may have exceeded the applicable

standard for no mole than five consecutive 6-minute averaging

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12

:47 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO,

2177822465

P . 10

r: gc 9

periods,

the

Permittee need only report the incident in

accordance with Condition

9(b)(ii) .)

d .

Upon

conclusion

of each incident that is two hours or more

in duration, the Pcrmittee shall submit a written follow-up

notice to the Illinois EPA, Compliance Section and Regional

Office, within 15 days

providing a detailed description of

the incident and its cause(s), an explanation why continued

operation was necessary, the length of time during which

operation continued under such conditions, the measures

taken by the Pormi

.Ltee to minimize and correct deficiencies

with chronology, and when the repairs

wore completed or the

atiecced operation was taken out of service

.

,the ferml.ttoe

shall submit quarterly reports to the Illinois EPA

that include the following information for incidents during the

quarter in which the affected Operation conLinued to operate

during malfunction or breakdown with excess emissions,

A .

A listing of such incidents, in

chronological order, that

includes

: (1) the date, time, and duration of Inch

incident, (2) the identity of the affected nperation(s)

.involved i.n the incident, and (3)

whether a follow-up

notice was submitted for the incident pursuant to Condition

9(b)(1)(A),

with the date of the notice .

B .

The detailed information for each such incident required

pursuant to Condition 9(a)

.

For this purpose, the

Permitteo need not resubmit information provided in a prior

report for an incident, as identified above, but may elect

to supplement the prior submittal

.

C .

The aggregate duration of all incident

:

: during the quarter .

U .

if there have been no such incidents during the calendar

quarter, thin shall be stated in the report .

10a

. Unless othetwise specified in a particular condition of this permit or

in the written instructions distributed by the Illinois EPA for

particular reports, reports and notifications shall be sent to the

Illinois FPA - Ai.r

Compliance section with a copy sent to the Illinois

EPA .. Air Regional Field 0£.fice .

h

.

The currant nddresses of the offices that should goncrally be utilized

for the submittal of reports and notifications are as follows :

Illinois EPA - Air Compliance Section

Illinois gnvironmental Protection Agency (MC 40)

Bureau of Air

Compliance & Enforcement Section (Mr 40)

102.1 North Grand Avenue Bast

11,0 . Pox 192'76

Springfield, Illinois 62'/94-9276

Phone : 2171702-5811

Fax

: 217/782-6348

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12 :48 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO . 2177822465

P, 11

PngdO

ii .

Illinois EPA - Ai.r Regional Field

office

Illinois Fnvironcnental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

9511 West Ji,3rrison

Don. Plaines, Illinois 60016

Phone : 847/291-4000

Fax : 947/294-4018

7.1 .

The affected operations may be operated with the new control systems

p nvsucnt . t o

tbio construction permit until an operating permit becomes

effective that addrosses operation of these operations with the new

control systems .

If

e1 :

you

217/782-2113havo

any

.

gquestiouu concorning thin permit, please contact Manish Patel

Manager,

Donald

L3vision

F .

Pnof

Sutton;-mtt

Air Pollution

.

SectionF

.E .

Control

DFS :MNP :ps:j

cc :

Region 1

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI

12 :48 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO, 2177822465

P . 12

STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ONISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

P

. 0 . BOX 19500

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 6274-0500

BT4NOARD CONDITIONS FOR CONS'1'RUCTIONIDEVELOPMENT PERMITS

ISSUEr) IBY THE ILIINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

July 1, l 5

'l'ha Illinois Envirouruental Protection Act (Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 111-1/2, Section 1039) authorizes the

Nnviranrncntnl Protection Agency to impose conditions on permits which It Issues

.

The following conditions ore applicable unless susperceded by special condition(s)

.

L Unk:mn

this permit has been extended or it has been voided by a newly issued permit, this permit will expire one

stnrtud

year from

bythe

Such

dutc

limaof .

issuance, unless a continuous program of construction or development on this project has

2 . The cora

;truction or development covered by this permit shall be done in compliance with applicable provisions of

the Illinnio }snvirunmental Protection Act and Reguhttionn adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

}3

. There shall Fe no deviations from the approved plans mid specifications unless a written request for modification,

along with plans and speelficatior

; as required, shall have been submitted to the Agency and a supplemental

written permit issued .

4

. 'fhe geruutbxc shall allow any duly oitborized agent of the Agency upon the presentation of credentials, at

rem,onolile IIn1ea :

+,I

to enter the porrnitteo's property where actual or potential effluent, omission or noise sources are located or

wl,cre any activity is to bo conducted pursuant to this permit,

b, to have access to and to copy tiny records required to be kept under the terns and conditions of this permit,

c

. to rnspcet, including during any hours of operation of equipment constructed or operated under this permit,

smelt equipment slid any

equipment required to be kept, used, operated, calibrated and mnintnined under this

pco rni t,

d

. to obtain and remove samples of any discharge or omissions of pollutants, and

e

. to enter and utilize tiny photographic, recording, testing, monitoring or other equipment for the purpose of

pro

;aerving, testing, monitoring, or recording any activity, discharge, or emission authorized by this permit

.

1 he ir.nmnce

of thin permit

:

a . :

:hall not bo considered as In any manner affecting the title of the promises upon which the permitted

facilities are to L2, located,

h . seen not raloarn the pornritteo from any liability for damage to person or property caused

by or resulting front

th.r corrntruclion, maintenance, or operation of the proposed facilities,

c . clues not relcare the permittee from compliance with other applicable statutes and regulations of the United

State„ of t.be

. Stato of Illinois, or with applicable local laws, ordinances and regulations,

d . does not take into consideration or sliest to the structural stability of any units or parhe of the project, anti

u . eaz-O:va

PC, Ice

9

PnnaeonAnoyciedPaper

ODeomm

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

MAR-03-06 FRI 12

:49 PM

IEPA BOA

FAX NO, 2177822465

P. 13

e. in no manner implies or suggests that the Agency (or its officers,agente or employees) assumes any liability,

directly or indirectly, for any bus due to damage, installation, maintenance, or operation of the proposed

equipment or facility

.

0. a . Urdesy o joint cmistruction/operation permit has been issued, a permit for operation shall be obtained from

the Agency before the equipment covered by this permit is placed into operation

.

b. Per

ment

pnrpooecovered

.a

tinder

of shakedown

thin penult

and tenting,

may be operated

unless otherwise

for a period

specified

not to

by

exceed

a special

thirty

permit

(30)

condition,

days

.

the equip

.

7 .

The Agency may file n complaint with the Board for modification, suspension or revocation of a permit

:

a

. upon

or that

discovery

nil relevant

that the

facto

permit

were not

application

disclosed,

contained

or

mlsreprooentotiona, misinformation or false statements

h. upon finding that eny standard or special conditions have been violated, or

e

. upon

the

any

construction

vielatione

or

of

development

the Environmental

authorized

Protection

by this

Act

permitorally

.

regulation effective thereunder as a result of

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

*** **

RECEIVED,

PCB -2006-456**

CLERK'S OFFICE,

.** *

APRIL 7, 2006

Exhibit 2

---

FYI

Basil G

. Constantelos

Director, Environmental Services

Midwest Generation

312-583-6029

Forr arded by Bill Constantelos/Chicago/MWGEN on 03103/2006 12 :54 PM --

"Chris Romaine" < C hris .Romaine@epa .state.il .u s >

To <eConstanteios@MWGencorn>

"Don Sutton" <D on .Sutton@epa .state .il .u s >, "Julie Armitage"

03/03/2006 11 27 AM

or,

<

J

ulie .Armitage@epa

.state

.iI .us

>, "Laurel Kroack" < L aurelKroack@epa .stale .il.u s >,

"Manish Patel" <Manish .Patel@epastate ,l .us>

Subject Re : will County Permit

N . .

>>> B i t l Constantelos <Constantelos@M[NGen

.ooih> 3/3/2006 9 :54 AM >>>

Chris,

NKe received the attached permit last night and I wanted to be sure you

know that we have asked that you r

emove the conditions we are

appealing

in. our Title V perm

: OS .

We are agreeable to having any conditions

apps? after we reach settlement .

Can you do this?

Please?

Bill

Basil G

. Constantelos

Director, Environmental Services

Midwest Generation

312-593-6019

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Bassi, Kathleen C .

From :

Bill Constantelos [ B Constantelos@MWGen

.co m ]

Sent :

Friday, March 03, 2006 12 :55 PM

To :

Andrea Crapisi

; Bassi, Kathleen C . ; Zabel, Sheldon

Subject

: Fw : Will County Permit

3/6/2006

Page I of 1

EXHIBIT 2

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

"* **rCD2fl9C=1-56*-****--

Exhibit 3

---

217/762-2113

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

ILLINOIS LNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

P

.O . Box 19506, SPRINCoEL0, ILLINOIS 62794-9506

RENFF CI'RIANO, DIRECOK

CONSTRUCTION

PERMIT

PERMITTEE

Midwest Generation, LLC

Attn : Scott B .

Miller

440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500

Chicago,

Illinois 60605

ApplicationNo

: 04030033

Applicants Des ignation :

I .D . No_ : 031600AIN

Su~ect : Control for Coal Handling System

DateReceived :

March 11,

2004

Date Issued :

April 2, 2004

Location

:Crawford Generating Station, 3501 South Pulaski Road, Chicago, Cook

County

pollution

Permit is

control

hereby granted

equipment

to the

consisting

above-designated

of wet dust

Permittee

extractor

to

systems

CONSTRUCT

for

airthe

coal bunkers for Units 7 and 8, as described in the above referenced

applicationand

the following

. This

special

Permit is

condition(s)subject

to

:

standard conditions attached hereto

1 .

This permit is issued based on the new wet dust extractor systems

replacing existing baghouses,

to improve safety and operational

performance . The existing rotoclones which served as back-up control

systems to the baghouses, will be retained as a back-up controls for

the coal bunkers .

2a .

Pursuant to 35 IAC 212 .123(a), the emission of smoke or other

exceed

particulate

an opacity

matter

greater

from the

than

coal

30

bunkers

percent,

for

except

Units 7

as

and

allowed

8 shalll

by 35

notIAC

212 .123(b) and 212 .124 .

b .

i .

The

Units

opacity

7 and 8

of

shall

particulate

not exceed

matter

20

emissions

percent pursuant

from the

to

bunker

the NSPSfor

requirement

considered

for coal preparation

a

is

modification,

being imposed

plants,

as

because

40

it

CFR

increases

60,

the

Subpart

change

hourly

in

Y

:

particulatecontrol

This

is

matter emissions from coal handling operations associated with

preparation of coal at the plant .

ii . Notwithstanding the above, as provided by 40 CFR 60

.8(c), opacity

in excess of the above limit during periods of startup, shutdown

and malfunction as defined by 40 CFR 60 .7, shall not be

considered a violation

.

c .

At all times, the coal bunkers shall be operated in accordance with

good air pollution control practices, as required by 40 CFR 60

.11(d)

.

3a .

The Permittee is authorized to continue operation of a coal bunker in

violation of the applicable requirements of3S IAC 212

.123

(Condition 2a) in the event of

a malfunction or breakdown, subject to

the following provisions

. This authorization is provided pursuant to

35 IAC 201 .262 as the Perrittee has submitted

proof that continued

operation is required to provide essential service, prevent risk of

injury to personnel or severe damage to equipment

."

ROD R . BLACO)FVICH,

GovuRNoR

PRINTEn ON RFCYrEED PAPER

EXHIBIT 3

---

Page 2

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

This authorization only allows such continued

operation as

necessary to provide essential service, prevent risk of injury to

personnel or severe damage to equipment and does not extend to

continued operation solely for the economic benefit of the

Permittee . As provided by 35 IAC 201 .265, this authorization

does not shield the Permittee from enforcement for any such

violation and shall only constitute a prima facie defense to such

an enforcement action .

ii .

Upon occurrence of excess emissions due to malfunction or

breakdown, the Permittee shall as soon as practicable repair the

affected unit or remove the affected unit from service so that

excess emissions cease . Unless the Permittee obtains an

extension from the Illinois EPA, this shall be accomplished

within 24 hours* or noon of the Illinois EPA's next business

day*, whichever is later . The Permittee may obtain an extension

for up to a total of 72 hours* from the Illinois EPA, Air

Regional Office . The Illinois EPA, Air Compliance Section, in

Springfield, may grant a longer extension if the Permittee

demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist and the unit

can not reasonably be repaired or removed from service within the

allowed time, it will repair the unit or remove the unit from

service as soon as practicable ; and it is taking all reasonable

steps to minimize excess emissions, based on the actions that

have been and will be taken .

*

For this purpose and other related provisions, time shall

be measured from the start of a particular incident . The

absence of excess emissions for a short period shall not be

considered to end the incident if excess emissions resume

.

In such circumstances, the incident shall be considered to

continue until corrective actions are taken so that excess

emissions cease or the Permittee takes the affected

operation out of service .

The Permittee shall fulfill applicable recordkeeping and

reporting requirements of Conditions 3(b) and 4(c)

.

Following notification to the Illinois EPA of a malfunction or

breakdown with excess emissions, the Permittee shall comply with

all reasonable directives of the Illinois EPA with respect to

such incident, pursuant to 35 IAC 201 .263 .

b .

Pursuant to 35 IAC 201 .263, the Permittee shall maintain records for

each incident when operation of a coal bunker continued during

malfunction or breakdown with excess emissions, including the following

information :

i .

Date and duration of malfunction or breakdown .

ii

.

A description of the malfunction or breakdown

.

---

Page 3

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

i

The corrective actions used to reduce the

quantity of emissions

and the duration of the incident, including a discussion of the

transition to the rotoclones .

Confirmation of fulfillment of the requirements of Condition

4(c)(U , as applicable, including copies of follow-up reports

submitted pursuant to Condition 4(c)(ii) .

if excess emissions occurred for two or more hours

:

A .

An explanation why continued operation was necessary .

B .

The preventative measures planned or taken to prevent

similar malfunctions or breakdowns or reduce their

frequency and severity

.

C .

An estimate of the magnitude of excess emissions occurring

during the incident .

4a .

Particulate matter emissions from each coal

0

.83 lb/hour and 6

.0 tons/year

.

bunker shall not exceed

b .

Notwithstanding the above, particulate matter emissions from a coal

bunker

authorization

may exceed

is subject

0

.83 lb/hour

to the

during

same terms

a malfunction

and conditions

or breakdownestablished

. This

in Condition 3 for exceedance of the opacity standard during a

malfunction and breakdown .

c . Pursuant to 35 IAC 201 .263, the Permittee shall provide the following

notifications and reports to the Illinois EPA, compliance section and

Regional Office, concerning incidents when operation of a coal bunker

continued during malfunction or breakdowns .

The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA's Regional

. Office, by

telephone (voice, facsimile or electronic) as soon as possible

during normal working hours for each incident in which

the

opacity from a coal bunker exceeds 30 percent for more than five

consecutive 6-minute averaging periods

. (Otherwise, if opacity

during a malfunction or breakdown incident only exceeds 30

percent for less than five consecutive 6-minute averaging periods

in a row, the Permittee need only report the incident in the

quarterly report .)

Upon conclusion of each incident that is two hours or more in

duration, the Permittee shall submit a written follow-up notice

to the Illinois EPA, Compliance Section and Regional Office,

within 15 days providing a detailed explanation of the event, an

explanation why continued operation of an bunker was necessary,

the length of time during which operation continued under such

conditions, the measures taken by the Permittee to minimize and

correct deficiencies with chronology, and when the repairs were

completed or when the coal bunker was taken out of service .

---

6 .

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page 4

d .

These

provisions addressing

continued operation during a malfunction or

breakdown event may be revised in the CAAPP permit for the source

.

5a .

The

affected

Permittee

units

shall

as necessary

perform inspections

but at least

of

once

the

per

operations

month, including

of the

the

associated control measures, while the affected units are in operation,

to confirm compliance with the requirements of this permit

.

b .

The Permittee shall maintain records of the following for the above

inspections

:

Date and time the inspection was performed and name(s) of

inspection personnel .

ii .

The observed condition of the established control measures for

the affected unit .

established

A description

control

of any

measures

maintenance

that

or

is

repair

recommended

associated

as a

withresult

of

maintenance

the inspection

or repair

and a review

from previous

of outstanding

inspection(s),recommendations

i .e .,

whetherfor

recommended action ban been taken, is yet to he performed or no

longer appears to be required .

A summary of compliance compared to the established control

measures .

Upon written request by the Illinois EPA, the Permittee shall conduct

observations of opacity for a coal bunker in accordance with USEPA

Reference Method 9

.

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for Unit 7 and s

coal bunkers :

a .

A maintenance and repair logs for each dust extractor system,

including the date and nature of maintenance and repair

activities performed .

b

.

operating and maintenance logs for rotoclones, including date and

period of operation .

c .

To demonstrate compliance with Condition

4(a), the Permittee

shall keep records for particulate matter emissions from a coal

bunker (tons/month and tone/yr), with supporting calculations

.

d .

Records for any opacity observations performed by method 9 that

compliance

Permittee conducts

with Condition

or are

2,

conducted

including

on its

name

behalf

of the

to

observer,

demonstratedate

and time, duration of observation, raw data, and conclusion

.

8 .

All records required by this permit shall be retained at the source for

at least 5 years from the date of entry and shall be readily accessible

to the Illinois EPA for inspection and copying upon request

.

9 .

The coal bunkers for Units 7 and 8 may be operated with the new wet

dust extractor systems pursuant to this construction permit until a

CAAPP permit is issued for the source that addresses these systems

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page 5

9 .

The coal bunkers

for Units 7 and 8 may be operated with the new wet

dust extractor systems pursuant to this construction permit until a

CAAPP permit is issued for the source that addresses these systems

.

217/782-2113if

you have any

.

questions concerning this, please contact Kunj Patel at

Donald E . Sutton, P .E .

Manager,

Division of

Permit

Air Pollution

Section

Control

DES :KMP :jar

cc :

Region 1

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* *_* * B2006-156'"'"

_

Exhibit 4

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

*****PCB2006-156*****

RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

P .O . Box 19506, SPRINCREID,hiiNOIS

62794-9506

Cate Issued : April 2, 2004

Location :

Tazewell

Powerton

CountyGenerating

Station, 13082 East Manito Road, Pekin,

Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to CONSTRUCT air

pollution

coal silo for

control

Unit

equipment

5, and dry

consisting

fogger systems

of wet

on

dust

the

extractor

traveling

system

tripper

for

car

theand

at some tripper room transfer points, as described in the above referenced

applicationand

the following

. This

special

Permit

condition(s)is

subject to

:

standard conditions attached hereto

This permit is issued based on the new wet dust extractor system

replacing existing baghouses, to improve safety and operational

performance . The dry fogger systems will be used as a secondary

control systems for the Unit 5 coal silo .

2a .

Pursuant to 35 IAC 212 .123(a), the emission of smoke or other

particulate

opacity

and 212 .124greater

.

matter

than

from

30

the

percent,

coal

except

silo for

as

Unit

allowed

5 shall

by 35

not

IAC

exceed

212

.123(b)an

b .

i .

The opacity of particulate matter emissions from the silo for

unit 5 shall not exceed 20 percent pursuant to the NSPS for coal

preparation

being imposed

plants,

because

40

the

CFR

change

60, Subpart

in control

Y

: This

is considered

requirement

a

is

modification,

from coal handling

as it

operations

increases

associated

hourly particulate

with preparation

matter emissionsof

coal

at the plant .

Notwithstanding the above, as provided by 40 CPR 60

.8(c), opacity

in excess of the above limit during periods of startup, shutdown

and malfunction as defined by 40 CPR 60

.7, shall not be

considered a violation .

c .

At all times, the coal hunkers shall be operated in accordance with

good air pollution control practices, as required by 40 CFR 60

.11(d) .

3a-

The Permittee is authorized to continue operation of a coal silo in

violation of the applicable requirements of 35 TAC 212

.123

(Condition 2a) in the event of a malfunction or breakdown, subject to

the following provisions

. This authorization is provided pursuant to

operation

35 IAC 201is

.262

required

as the

to

Permittee

provide

has

essential

submittedservice,

" ...

proof

prevent

that

risk

continuedof

injury to personnel or severe damage to equipment

."

ROD R . BEACOIeVICH, GOVERNOR

PRINTED oN RECYCLED PAPER

EXHIBIT 4

RENEE CIPRIANO, DIRECTOR

217/782-2113

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

PERMITTEE

Midwest Generation, LLC

A.ttn :

Scott B . Miller

440

Chicago,

South

Illinois

LaSalle Street,

60605

Suite 3500

Application No

: 04030053

i .D

. No . : 179803AAA

ApplicantsDesignation

:

Subject : Control for coal Handling System

Date Received : March 22,

2004

---

Page 2

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

This authorization

only allows such

continued operation as

necessary to

provide essential service,

prevent risk of injury to

personnel or

severe damage

to equipment and does not extend Lo

continued operation solely for the economic benefit of the

Permittee

. As provided by 35 IAC 201

.265, this authorization

does not shield the Permittee from enforcement for any such

violation and shall only constitute a prima facie defense to such

an enforcement action .

Upon occurrence of excess emissions due to malfunction or

breakdown, the Permittee shall as soon as practicable repair the

affected unit or remove the affected unit from service so that;

excess emissions cease

. Unless the Permittee obtains an

extension from the Illinois EPA, this shall be accomplished

within 24 hours` or noon of the

. Tllinois EPA's next business

day`, whichever is later

. The Permittee may obtain an extension

for up to a total of '72 hours* from the Illinois EPA, Air

Regional Office

. The Illinois EPA, Air Compliance Section, in

Springfield, may grant a longer extension if the Permittee

demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist and the unit

can not reasonably be repaired or removed from service within the

allowed time, it will repair the unit or remove the unit from

service as soon as practicable

; and it is taking all reasonable

steps to minimize excess emissions, based on the actions that

have been and will be taken .

*

For this purpose and other related provisions, time shall

be measured from the start of a particular incident

. The

absence of excess emissions for a short period shall not be

considered to end the incident if excess emissions

resume

.

i

n

such circumstances, the incident shall be considered to

continue until corrective actions are taken so that excess

emissions cease or the Permittee takes the affected

operation out of service .

The Permittee shall fulfill applicable recordkeeping and

reporting requirements of Conditions 3(b) and

4(c) .

iv .

Following notification to the Illinois EPA of a malfunction or

breakdown with excess emissions, the Permittee shall comply with

all reasonable directives of the Illinois EPA with respect to

such incident, pursuant to 35 IAC 201

.263 .

h .

Pursuant to 35 IAC 201

.263, the Permittee shall maintain records for

each incident when operation of a coal silo continued during

malfunction or breakdown with excess emissions, including the following

information

:

Date and duration of malfunction or breakdown

.

i

A description of the malfunction or breakdown

.

---

Page 3

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Theandtransitioncorrectivethe

durationto

theactionsofrotoclonesthe

usedincident,to

.

reduceincludingthe quantitya

discussionof

. emissionsof

the

Confirmation4(c)(i),submitted

aspursuantapplicable,of

fulfillmentto

Conditionincludingof

the4(c)(ii)copiesrequirements

.

of follow-upofConditionreports

If excess emissions occurred

for two or more hours, :

A .

An explanation why continued

operation was

necessary .

The preventative

measures planned or taken

to prevent

similar malfunctions or breakdowns or reduce their

frequency and severity .

An estimate of the magnitude of excess emissions occurring

during the incident

.

4a .

Particulate matter emissions from coall silo for Unit 5 shall not exceed

0 .83 lb/hour and 6 .0 tons/year .

h .

Notwithstanding the above, particulate matter emissions from a coal

authorization

silo may exceed

is

0subject

.83 lb/hour

to the

during

same

a

terms

malfunction

and conditions

or breakdownestablished

. This

in Condition 3 for exceedance of the opacity standard during a

malfunction and breakdown .

c . Pursuant to 35 IAC 201

.263, the Permittee shall provide the following

notifications and reports to the Illinois EPA, Compliance Section and

Regional Office, concerning incidents when operation of a coal bunker

continued during malfunction or breakdowns .

The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA's Regional office, by

telephone (voice, facsimile or electronic) as soon as possible

during normall working hours for each incident in which the

opacity from a coal bunker exceeds 30 percent for more than five

consecutive 6-minute averaging periods .

(Otherwise, if opacity

during a malfunction or breakdown incident only exceeds 30

percent for less than five consecutive 6-minute averaging periods

in a row, the Permittee need only report the incident in the

quarterly report .)

Upon conclusion of each incident that is two hours or more in

duration, the Permittee shall submit a written follow-up notice

to the Illinois EPA, Compliance Section and Regional office,

within 15 days providing a detailed explanation of the event, an

explanation why continued operation of an bunker was necessary,

the length of time during which operation continued under such

conditions, the measures taken by the Permittee to minimize and

---

Page 4

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

correct deficiencies with

chronology, and when the repairs were

completed or when the coal bunker was taker, out of service .

d .

These provisions addressing continued operation during a malfunction or

breakdown event may be revised in the CAAPP permit for the source

.

51 .

The

affected

Permittee

units

shall

as necessary

perform inspections

but at least

of

once

the

per

operations

month, including

of the

the

associated controll measures, while affected units are in operation to

confirm compliance with the requirements of this permit

.

b .

The Permittee shall maintain records of the following for the above

inspections

:

i .

Date and time the inspection was performed and name(s) of

inspection personnel .

The observed condition of the established control measures for

the affected unit

A i

A description of any maintenance or repair associated with

established control measures that is recommended as a result of

the inspection and a review of outstanding recommendations for

maintenance or repair from previous inspection(s), i

.e ., whether

recommended action has been taken, is yet to be performed or no

longer appears to be required .

A summary of compliance compared to the established control

measures .

Upon written request by the Illinois EPA, the Permittee shall conduct

observations of opacity for a coal silo in accordance with USEPA

Reference method 9 .

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for Unit 5 coal

silo :

a .

A maintenance and repair logs for the dust extractor system,

including the date and nature of maintenance and repair

activities performed .

b-

operating and maintenance logs for fogger systems, including date

and period of operation

.

c .

To demonstrate compliance with Condition 4(a), the Permittee

shall keep records for particulate matter emissions from a coal

silo (tons/month and tons/yr), with supporting calculations

.

d .

Records for any opacity observations performed by Method 9 that

Permittee conducts or are conducted on its behalf to demonstrate

compliance with Condition 2, including name of the observer, date

and time, duration of observation, raw data, and conclusion

.

S .

All

at least

records

5 years

required

from

by

the

this

date

permit

of entry

shall

and

be

shall

retained

be readily

at the source

accessiblefor

to the Illinois EPA for inspection and copying upon request,

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page 5

9 .

The

coal silo for Unit 5 may be operated with the

new wet dust

extractor system pursuant to this construction permit until a CAAPP

permit is issued for the source that addresses these systems

.

If you have any questions concerning this, please contact Kunj Patel at

217/782-211

.3 .

Donald E . Sutton, P .E

.

Manager,

Division

Permit

of Air

SectionPollution

Control

DES :KMP :psj

CC :

Region 2

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Exhibit 5

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulatitmst

* * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page I of 4

Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of

Federal Regulations > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)

BETA TEST SITE

e-CFR Data is current as of April 4, 2006

Title 40 : Protection of Environment

PART 60-STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

Subpart A-General . Provisions

Browse . Previous I Browse Next

§ 60 .2 Definitions .

The terms used in this part are defined in the Act or in this section as follows :

Act means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C . 7401 et seq.)

Administrator

means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or his authorized

representative .

Affected facility means, with reference to a stationary source, any apparatus to which a standard is

applicable .

Alternative method means any method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant which is not a

reference or equivalent method but which has been demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to,

in specific cases, produce results adequate for his determination of compliance .

Approved permit program means a State permit program approved by the Administrator as meeting the

requirements of part 70 of this chapter or a Federal permit program established in this chapter pursuant

to Title V of the Act (42 U .S.C . 7661) .

Capital expenditure means an expenditure for a physical or operational change to an existing facility

which exceeds the product of the applicable "annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage"

specified in the latest edition of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 534 and the existing facility's

basis, as defined by section 1012 of the Internal Revenue Code . However, the total expenditure for a

physical or operational change to an existing facility must not be reduced by any "excluded additions" as

defined in IRS Publication 534, as would be done for tax purposes .

Clean coal technology demonstration project means a project using funds appropriated under the

heading 'Department of Energy-Clean Coal Technology', up to a total amount of $2,500,000,000 for

commercial demonstrations of dean coal technology, or similar projects funded through appropriations

for the Environmental Protection Agency .

Commenced means, with respect to the definition of new

source in section 111 (a)(2) of the Act, that an

owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of construction or modification or that an owner

or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable

time, a continuous program of construction or modification .

Construction means fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility .

Continuous monitoring

system means the total equipment, required under the emission monitoring

sections in applicable subparts, used to sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide

a permanent record of emissions or process parameters .

EXHIBIT 5

http://ecfr

.gpoaccess .gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab3el59a63e42dOa496094b76a&rg

.. . 4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulat#otas* * * PCB 2006_1556 * * * * *

Page 2 of 4

Electric

utility

steam generating unit means any steam electric generating unit that is constructed for the

purpose of supplying more than one-third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 MW

electrical output to any utility power distribution system for sale

. Any steam supplied to a steam

distribution system for the purpose of providing steam to a steam-electric generator that would produce

electrical energy for sale is also considered in determining the electrical energy output capacity of the

affected facility .

Equivalent method

means any method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant which has been

demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to have a consistent and quantitatively known

relationship to the reference method, under specified conditions

.

Excess Emissions and Monitoring Systems Performance Report is a report that must be submitted

periodically by a source in order to provide data on its compliance with stated emission limits and

operating parameters, and on the performance of its monitoring systems

Existing

facility means, with reference to a stationary source, any apparatus of the type for which a

standard is promulgated in this part, and the construction or modification of which was commenced

before the date of proposal of that standard ; or any apparatus which could be altered in such a way as

to be of that type

.

lsokinetic sampling means sampling in which the linear velocity of the gas entering the sampling nozzle

is equal to that of the undisturbed gas stream at the sample point .

Issuance

of a part 70 permit will occur, if the State is the permitting authority, in accordance with the

requirements of part 70 of this chapter and the applicable, approved State permit program

. When the

EPA is the permitting authority, issuance of a Title V permit occurs immediately after the EPA takes final

action on the final permit

.

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner . Failures that are

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions .

Modification means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an existing facility

which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to which a standard applies) emitted into the

atmosphere by that facility or which results in the emission of any air pollutant (to which a standard

applies) into the atmosphere not previously emitted .

Monitoring device

means the total equipment, required under the monitoring of operations sections in

applicable subparts, used to measure and record (if applicable) process parameters .

Nitrogen oxides

means all oxides of nitrogen except nitrous oxide, as measured by test methods set

forth in this part .

One-hour period means any 60-minute period commencing on the hour .

Opacity

means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission of light and obscure the view of

an object in the background .

Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an affected

facility or a stationary source of which an affected facility is a part .

Part 70 permit means any permit issued, renewed, or revised pursuant to part 70 of this chapter

.

Particulate

matter means any finely divided solid or liquid material, other than uncombined water, as

measured by the reference methods specified under each applicable subpart, or an equivalent or

alternative method .

Permit program means a comprehensive State operating permit system established pursuant to title V of

the Ad (42 U .S .C

. 7661) and regulations codified in part 70 of this chapter and applicable State

regulations, or a comprehensive Federal operating permit system established pursuant to title V of the

http ://ecfr .gpoaccess .gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab

3

eI59a63e42d0a496094b76a&rg

. . .

4/6/2006

---

Electronic Code of

ELECTRONIC

Federal RegulabtoestFILING,

. *

RECEIVED,

* PCB 2006_1556

CLERK'S OFFICE,

* * * * *

APRIL 7, 2006

Page 3 of 4

Act and regulations codified in this chapter .

Permitting authority means :

(1) The State air pollution control agency, local agency, other State agency, or other agency authorized

by the Administrator to carry out a permit program under part 70 of this chapter ; or

(2) The Administrator, in the case of EPA-implemented permit programs under title V of the Act (42

U .S .C . 7661) .

Proportional sampling means sampling at a rate that produces a constant ratio of sampling rate to stack

gas flow rate .

Reactivation of a very clean coal-fired electnc utility steam generating unit means any physical change

or change in the method of operation associated with the commencement of commercial operations by a

coal-fired utility unit after a period of discontinued operation where the unit :

(1) Has not been in operation for the two-year period prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, and the emissions from such unit continue to be carried in the permitting

authority's emissions inventory at the time of enactment ;

(2) Was equipped prior to shut-down with a continuous system of emissions control that achieves a

of

removal

no less

efficiency

than 98

for

percentsulfur

;

dioxide

of no less than 85 percent and a removal efficiency for particulates

(3) Is equipped with low-NO X burners prior to the time of commencement of operations following

reactivation ; and

(4) Is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Reference method means any method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant as specified in the

applicable subpart

.

Repowering means replacement of an existing coal-fired boiler with one of the following clean coal

technologies atmospheric or pressurized fluidized bed combustion, integrated gasification combined

cycle, magnetohydrodynamics, direct and indirect coal-fired turbines, integrated gasification fuel cells, or

as determined by the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, a derivative of one or

more of these technologies, and any other technology capable of controlling multiple combustion

emissions simultaneously with improved boiler or generation efficiency and with significantly greater

waste reduction relative to the performance of technology in widespread commercial use as of

November 15, 1990 . Repowering shall also include any oil and/or gas-fired unit which has been awarded

clean coal technology demonstration funding as of January 1, 1991, by the Department of Energy .

Run

means the net period of time during which an emission sample is collected . Unless otherwise

specified, a run may be either intermittent or continuous within the limits of good engineering practice

.

Shutdown

means the cessation of operation of an affected facility for any purpose .

Six-minute period means any one of the 10 equal parts of a one-hour period .

Standard means a standard of performance proposed or promulgated under this part .

Standard conditions means a temperature of 293 K (6SF) and a pressure of 101 .3 kilopascals (29 .92 in

Hg) .

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected facility for any purpose .

State means all non-Federal authorities, including local agencies, interstate associations, and State-wide

programs, that have delegated authority to implement (1) The provisions of this part

; and/or (2) the

http://ecfr .gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eefr&sid=53bf44ab3 e

159x63 e42d0a496094b76a&rg . . . 4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulattotts* * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page 4 of 4

permit program established under part 70 of this chapter

. The term State shall have its conventional

meaning where clear from the context .

Stationary source means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may

emit any air

pollutant .

Title V permit

means any permit issued, renewed, or revised pursuant to Federal or State regulations

established to implement title V of the Act (42 U .S .C . 7661) . A title V permit issued

by a State permitting

authority is called a part 70 permit in this part

.

Volatile Organic Compound

means any organic compound which participates in atmospheric

photochemical reactions

; or which is measured by a reference method, an equivalent method, an

alternative method, or which is determined by procedures specified under any subpart

.

[44 FR 55173, Sept

. 25, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 5617, Jan . 23, 1980 ; 45 FR 85415, Dec . 24, 1980 ;

54 FR 6662, Feb . 14, 1989 ; 55 FR 51382, Dec

. 13, 1990 ; 57 FR 32338, July 21, 1992 ; 59 FR 12427,

Mar . 16 . 1994]

Browse Previous I Browse Next

For questions or comments regarding e-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr@nara gov .

For questions concerning a-CFR programming and delivery issues, email

w ebteam@gpo .gov .

Last updated

: July 27, 2005

http ://ecfr .gpoaccess

.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab3eI59a63e42d0a496094b76a&rg

. . . 4 /6/2006

---

Electronic Code of

ELECTRONIC

Federal

Rcgulabeofls*

FILING,

*

RECEIVED,

* PCB 2006-156

CLERK'S

*

OFFICE,

* * * *

APRIL 7, 2006

Page 1 of 3

Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal Regulations > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)

BETA TEST SITE

e-CFR Data is current as of April 4, 2006

Title 40 : Protection of Environment

PART 6G-STA NDA

RDS_OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

Subpart

A-General

Provisions

Browse Previous I Browse Next

§ 60 .14 Modification .

(a) Except as provided under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, any physical

or operational change

to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere

of any pollutant

to which a standard applies shall be considered a modification within the meaning of section

111 of the

Act . Upon modification, an existing facility shall become an affected facility for

each pollutant to which a

standard applies and for which there is an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere

.

(b) Emission rate shall be expressed as kg/hr of any pollutant discharged into the

atmosphere for which

a standard is applicable . The Administrator shall use the following to determine emission

rate :

EPA

(1) Emission

Publication

factors

Noas

. AP-42,

specified

or

in

other

the

emission

latest issue

factors

of "Compilation

determined

of

by

Air

the

PollutantAdministratorEmission

to be

Factors,"superior

to

AP-42 emission factors, in cases where utilization of emission factors demonstrates

that the emission

level resulting from the physical or operational change will either clearly increase

or clearly not increase .

(2) Material balances, continuous monitor data, or manual emission tests in cases where

utilization of

emission factors as referenced in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section does not demonstrate to the

Administrator's satisfaction whether the emission level resulting from the physical or operational change

will either clearly increase or clearly not increase, or where an owner or operator demonstrates

to the

Administrator's satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to dispute the result obtained by the

Administrator utilizing emission factors as referenced in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section

. When the

emission rate is based on results from manual emission tests or continuous monitoring

systems, the

procedures specified in appendix C of this part shall be used to determine whether an

increase in

emission rate has occurred

. Tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator

shall

specify to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the facility .

At least three valid

test runs must be conducted before and at least three after the physical or operational

change . All

operating

degree for all

parameters

test runswhich

.

may affect emissions must be held constant to the maximum

feasible

(c) The addition of an affected facility to a stationary source as an expansion to that

source or as a

replacement for an existing facility shall not by itself bring within the applicability

of this part any other

facility within that source .

(d) [Reserved]

(e) The following shall not, by themselves, be considered modifications under this part :

(1) Maintenance, repair, and replacement which the Administrator determines to

be routine for a source

category, subject to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section and §60 .15 .

(2) An increase in production rate of an existing facility, if that increase can be

accomplished without a

capital expenditure on that facility .

http://ecfr.gpoaccess

.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab 3 e

159a63e42dOa496094b76a&rg . .

. 4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations*

* * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page 2 of 3

(3) An increase in the hours of operation .

(4) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if, prior to the date any standard under this part becomes

applicable to that source type, as provided by §60 .1, the existing facility was designed to accommodate

that alternative use

. A facility shall be considered to be designed to accommodate an alternative fuel or

raw material if that use could be accomplished under the facility's construction specifications as

amended prior to the change . Conversion to coal required for energy considerations, as specified in

section 111(a)(8) of the Act, shall not be considered a modification

.

(5) The addition or use of any system or device whose primary function is the reduction of air pollutants,

except when an emission control system is removed or is replaced by a system which the Administrator

determines to be less environmentally beneficial

.

(6) The relocation or change in ownership of an existing facility .

(f) Special provisions set forth under an applicable subpart of this part shall supersede any conflicting

provisions of this section .

(g) Within 180 days of the completion of any physical or operational change subject to the control

measures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, compliance with all applicable standards must be

achieved .

(h) No physical change, or change in the method of operation, at an existing electric utility steam

generating unit shall be treated as a modification for the purposes of this section provided that such

change does not increase the maximum hourly emissions of any pollutant regulated under this section

above the maximum hourly emissions achievable at that unit during the 5 years prior to the change .

(i) Repowering projects that are awarded funding from the Department of Energy as permanent clean

coal technology demonstration projects (or similar projects funded by EPA) are exempt from the

requirements of this section provided that such change does not increase the maximum hourly

emissions of any pollutant regulated under this section above the maximum hourly emissions achievable

at that unit during the five years prior to the change

.

Q)(1) Repowering projects that qualify for an extension under section 409(b) of the Clean Air Act are

exempt from the requirements of this section, provided that such change does not increase the actual

hourly emissions of any pollutant regulated under this section above the actual hourly emissions

achievable at that unit during the 5 years prior to the change .

(2) This exemption shall not apply to any new unit that

:

(i) Is designated as a replacement for an existing unit ;

(ii) Qualifies under section 409(b) of the Clean Air Act for an extension of an emission limitation

compliance date under section 405 of the Clean Air Act ; and

(iii) Is located at a different site than the existing unit

.

(k) The installation, operation, cessation, or removal of a temporary clean coal technology demonstration

project is exempt from the requirements of this section

. A temporary clean coal control technology

demonstration project, for the purposes of this section is a clean coal technology demonstration project

that is operated for a period of 5 years or less, and which complies with the State implementation plan

for the State in which the project is located and other requirements necessary to attain and maintain the

national ambient air quality standards during the project and after it is terminated .

(I) The reactivation of a very clean coal-fired electric utility steam generating unit is exempt from the

requirements of this section .

[40 FR 58419, Dec . 16, 1975, as amended at 43 FR 34347, Aug . 3, 1978

; 45 FR 5617, Jan . 23, 1980 ;

57 FR 32339, July 21, 1992 ; 65 FR 61750, Oct, 17, 20001

http ://ecfr, g poaccess .gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab3

e l 59a63e42d0a496094b76a&rg . . . 4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulattohs*

* * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

Page 3 of 3

Browse . Previous I Browse Next

For questions or comments regarding e-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr nara gov .

For questions concerning e-CFR programming and delivery issues, email webteam@gpo,gov .

Last updated : July 27, 2005

http :/lecfr.gpoaccess.gov/egi/tltext/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab3e159a63c42d0a496094b76a&rg

.. .

4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulattons* * * PCB 2006-1556 * * * * *

Page 1 of 3

H

ome Page > Executive Branch >

C

ode of Federal Regulations > ElectronicCode of Federal. Reg ulations

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)

BETA TEST SITE

e-CFR Data is current as of April 4, 2006

Title 40 : Protection of Environment

PART 60-STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

Browse Previous I Brows e Next

Subpart Y-Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants

§ 60 .250

Applicability and designation of affected facility .

(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to any of the following affected facilities in coal

preparation plants which process more than 181 Mg (200 tons) per day : Thermal dryers, pneumatic

coal-cleaning equipment (air tables), coal processing and conveying equipment (including breakers and

crushers), coal storage systems, and coal transfer and loading systems

.

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences construction or modification after

October 24, 1974, is subject to the requirements of this subpart .

(42 FR 37938, July 25, 1977 ; 42 FR 44812, Sept . 7, 1977, as amended at 65 FR 61757, Oct . 17, 2000]

§ 60 .251 Definitions .

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the meaning given them in the Act and in

subpart A of this part .

(a) Coal preparation plant

means any facility (excluding underground mining operations) which prepares

coal by one or more of the following processes : breaking, crushing, screening, wet or dry cleaning, and

thermal drying,

(b) Bituminous coal means solid fossil fuel classified as bituminous coal by ASTM Designation D388-77,

90, 91, 95, or 98a (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) .

(c) Coal means all solid fossil fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by

ASTM Designation D388-77, 90, 91, 95, or 98a (incorporated by reference-see §60 .17) .

(d) Cyclonic

flow means a spiraling movement of exhaust gases within a duct or stack .

(e) Thermal dryer

means any facility in which the moisture content of bituminous coal is reduced by

contact with a heated gas stream which is exhausted to the atmosphere .

(f) Pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment

means any facility which classifies bituminous coal by size or

separates bituminous coal from refuse by application of air stream(s) .

(g) Coal processing

and conveying equipment means any machinery used to reduce the size of coal or

to separate coal from refuse, and the equipment used to convey coal to or remove coal and refuse from

the machinery

. This includes, but is not limited to, breakers, crushers, screens, and conveyor belts .

(h) Coal storage system means any facility used to store coal except for open storage piles .

http ://ccfr.gpoaccess .gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab3

e 159a63e42dOa496094b76a&rg .. . 4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulattotas*

* * PCB 2006_1556 * * * * *

Page 2 of 3

(i) Transfer and loading

system means any facility used to transfer and load coal for shipment

.

[41 FR 2234, Jan

. 15, 1976, as amended at 48 FR 3738, Jan . 27, 1983

; 65 FR 61757, Oct. 17, 2000]

§ 60

.252 Standards for particulate matter

.

(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by §60 .8 is completed,

an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any thermal dryer gases which :

(1) Contain particulate matter in excess of 0

.070 g/dscm (0 .031 grldscf) .

(2) Exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater

.

(b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by §60

.8 is completed .

a n

owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any pneumatic coal cleaning equipment, gases which

:

(1) Contain particulate matter in excess of 0 .040 g/dscm (0

.017 gr/dscf) .

(2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater,

(c) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by §60

.8 is completed,

an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage system, or coal transfer

and loading system processing coal, gases which exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater

.

(41 FR 2234, Jan

. 15, 1976, as amended at 65 FR 61757, Oct . 17, 2000]

§ 60 .253 Monitoring of operations

.

(a) The owner or operator of any thermal dryer shall install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate

monitoring devices as follows :

(1) A monitoring device for the measurement of the temperature of the gas stream at the exit of the

thermal dryer on a continuous basis

. The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer to be

accurate within ±1 .7 °C (±3 °F)

.

(2) For affected facilities that use venturi scrubber emission control equipment

:

(i) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the pressure loss through the venturi

constriction of the control equipment

. The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer to be

accurate within it inch water gauge .

(ii) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the water supply pressure to the control

equipment

. The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within ±5 percent

of design water supply pressure . The pressure sensor or tap must be located close to the water

discharge point

. The Administrator may be consulted for approval of alternative locations .

(b) All monitoring devices under paragraph (a) of this section are to be recalibrated annually in

accordance with procedures under §60

.13(b) .

[41 FR 2234, Jan

. 15, 1976, as amended at 54 FR 6671, Feb . 14, 1989; 65 FR 61757, Oct . 17, 2000]

§ 60.254 Test methods and procedures .

(a) In conducting the performance tests required in §60

.8, the owner or operator shall use as reference

methods and procedures the test methods in appendix A of this part or other methods and procedures

http ://ecfr .gpoaccess .gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c-ccfr&si

d 53bf44ab 3 e159a63e42d0a496094b76a&rg

. . .

4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations* * * PCB 2006_1556 * * * * *

Page 3 of 3

as specified in this section, except as provided in §60

.8(b)

.

(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the particular matter standards in §60 .252 as

follows :

(1) Method 5 shall be used to determine the particulate matter concentration . The sampling time and

sample volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0 .85 dscm (30 dscf) . Sampling shall begin

no less than 30 minutes after startup and shall terminate before shutdown procedures

begin .

(2) Method 9 and the procedures in §60.11

shall be used to determine opacity .

[54 FR 6671, Feb, 14, 1989]

Browse Previous I Browse Next

For questions or comments regarding a-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email eclr@nara,gov .

For questions concerning e-CFR programming and delivery issues, email webteam@gpoa .gov

Last updated : July 27, 2005

http ://ecfr .gpoaccess .gov/cgi/t/texUtext-idx?c=ecfr&sid=53bf44ab 3 e

] 59a63e42d0a496094b76a&rg . . . 4/6/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * *PCB

2006-156-*

"Whit c

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

EPA-Clean Air Act Applicability P9eteP

tJPOgn O6_1 56 * * * * *

Pale I of 4

;:enters

Piaunuig

~r5

Determinations

pformation Resources

About Us

r,"rtu~te You l_r

d Carspleu'ts

Training

U

.S, Environmental Proteetio Agency

Comp

ecent Additions I Contact Us

I

Print Version

EPA Search 1

EPA Home > Compliance and Enforcement > Compliance Assistance > Applicability

Determinations > Applicability Determination Index > Search ADI Database

Search Applicability Determination Index

Search

Return to Search

Technical

Recent ADI

Related

Cca: 'ech

AD[

I Results

I Help I

Support

Updates

I Links

Determination Detail

Control Number: 0300127

Category

: NSPS

EPA Office : Region 5

Date :

06/30/2003

Title :

Applicability to Replacement of Individual Conveyors

Recipient

: Frank Prager

Author :

George Czerniak

Comments :

Subparts

: Part 60, Y

Coal Preparation Plants

References : 60 .14

60 .15

60 .2

60 .250(a)

60 .251(g)

Abstract :

01 : Does

f an individual coal conveyor constitute construction

or reconstruc

n affected facility or must one view the conveyors

collectively as a group when determining if the replacement or construction of an

individual conveyor constitutes the construction or reconstruction of an affected

facility?

A1

: Each conveyor must be evaluated individually to determine if the

replacement of a single conveyor creates an affected facility subject to Part 60,

Subpart Y

. Based on the wording of the regulation, each conveyor is viewed

individually

. This determination confirms an earlier determination on this issue,

and was also based on previous determinations concerning the applicability of

Subpart Y .

Q2

: When evaluating applicability of Subpart Y to coal processing and conveying

equipment at a coal preparation plant, does one include all coal preparation

equipment as a whole (system) or does one view each piece of processing and

conveying equipment as a separate affected facility?

0

EXHIBIT 6

httn ://cfnub .enac

eov/adi/index

.cfin?CFID=7018376&CFTOKEN=73259929&reauesttimco

. . . 3/20/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

EPA-Clean Air Act Applicability* Mt'sitflip(~&o

106-156 * * * * *

Page 2 of 4

A2 : The NSPS General Provisions in Subpart A define affected facility as any

apparatus to which a standard is applicable . In general, when U .S . EPA seeks to

regulate a process as a whole the regulation will refer to a system or facility or

will use the term "all" when describing the equipment that is part of the affected

facility

. Because Subpart Y defines coal processing an conveying equipment to

be any machinery and because U .S . EPA did not identify coal processing and

conveying equipment as a system, the affected facility is each individual coal

conveyor .

Letter :

6-30-03

(AE-17J)

Frank P

. Prager, Assistant General Counsel

Xcel Energy

1225 17th Street, Suite 900

Denver, Colorado 80202-5533

Re

: NSPS Subpart Y Applicability to Xcel Energy, Alan King Facility

Dear Mr . Prager :

This letter is in response to your letter of February 4, 2002, in which you

requested that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U .S . EPA)

reconsider a formal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - Subpart Y

applicability determination it issued to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in

a letter dated December 27, 2001 . The determination concerned the potential

applicability of NSPS -

Subpart Y to the Flite Coal Conveyor replacement project

at the Xcel Energy (Xcel), Allen S . King Generating Plant, in Bayport, Minnesota .

Please note that this response only addresses the issue of NSPS Subpart Y

applicability and does not address the applicability of other regulations including

New Source Review, the federally approved State Implementation Plan, and

other NSPS standards or requirements .

In your letter dated February 4, 2002, you make several assertions to support

your position that the affected facility designated under NSPS Subpart Y as "coal

processing and conveying equipment (including breakers and crushers)" must

include all "coal preparation plant equipment as a whole ." For example, you

assert that at "no point do the regulations state . . . that each piece of processing

and conveying equipment should be viewed as separate . . .[affected facilities] ."

The NSPS General Provisions set forth at 40 C .F .R . Subpart A, 60 .2, define

"affected facility" as "any apparatus to which a standard is

applicable ." (Emphasis added .) The designation of affected facilities under NSPS

Subpart Y at 40 C .F

.R

. 60

.250 includes "coal processing and conveying

equipment ." NSPS Subpart Y at 40 C .F .R . 60 .251(g) defines "coal processing

and conveying equipment" as "any machinery used to reduce the size of coal or

to separate coal from refuse, and the equipment used to convey

2

coal to or remove coal and refuse from machinery . This includes, but is not

limited to, breakers, crushers, screens, and conveyor belts ." (Emphasis added

.)

httn-//cfnnh ena nnv/adi/index efmvCFTD=7018'i76&CFTOKFN=73759929Rrrennesttimen

'i/20/7(1(16,

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

EPA-Clean Air Act Applicabilit}*hl'efer hiFIG&

r

4,06-156

* * * * *

Page 3 of 4

In general, where EPA seeks to regulate a process as a whole, or seeks to

define a process or certain objects as a whole, the NSPS regulations will refer to

the objects in the collective, such as describing the objects or process as a

"system" or a "facility," or will use the term "all" in describing those objects . For

example, the NSPS Subpart Y regulations designate "coal storage systems" and

also "coal transfer and loading systems" as affected facilities, and defines them,

respectively, as "any facility used to store coal" and as "any facility used to

transfer and load coal for shipment ." (Emphasis added .) Thus, under these

designations, all coal storage equipment is treated collectively as one affected

facility, and, correspondingly, all coal transfer and loading equipment used for

shipping is treated collectively as one affected facility .

In contrast, NSPS Subpart Y identifies "coal processing and conveying

equipment" as the affected facility . (Emphasis added .) Significantly, NSPS

Subpart Y does not designate this affected facility as a "coal processing and

conveying system

." Correspondingly, NSPS Subpart Y, in defining this affected

facility, refers to "any machinery" (emphasis added) . NSPS Subpart Y does not

define this affected facility as "any facility used to process or convey coal

." Thus,

it is clear from the plain language and context of NSPS Subpart Y that EPA did

not intend to regulate all "coal processing and conveying equipment" as one

collective affected facility .

Xcel also believes that U .S . EPA's position, as expressed in the December 27,

2001 letter to MPCA, is not logical because it would result in a situation where

the NSPS is applicable to certain individual conveyors that had been replaced

while the other equipment would remain exempt . Indeed, U .S

. EPA's position is

that there are a number of affected facilities at a coal preparation plant and it is

possible for some of them to be subject to the Subpart Y NSPS while other

facilities at the same plant are not subject to the Subpart Y NSPS . For example,

one thermal dryer at a coal preparation plant could be subject to the NSPS while

an adjacent older thermal dryer might not be subject to the NSPS . The logic of

U.S

. EPA's position arises from a basic premise of NSPS, which is, that new or

modified sources of air pollution have the greatest flexibility to incorporate

emission reduction technology

. It should be noted that under certain NSPS

standards certain companies have addressed the juxtaposition of existing and

affected sources by simply using the emission

3

controls required to meet the NSPS standard at both their affected and existing

facilities .

Your letter also discusses U .S

. EPA Region 5's position on the April 16, 1998,

letter from EPA Region IV regarding a Carolina Power and Light plant . As we

indicated in our December 27, 2001 letter, we acknowledge that this applicability

determination could have been written with greater clarity . For example, the

determination refers to a "coal conveying system" as being defined in the

regulation - when, in fact, NSPS Subpart Y neither refers to nor defines such a

term . However, U .S

. EPA Region 5 does agree with Region IV's determination in

relation to its finding that certain coal conveyors are subject to the requirements

of NSPS Subpart Y, while other coal conveyors may, or may not, be subject to

the requirements of NSPS Subpart Y

. In reference to certain other coal

conveyors that the company asserted were not subject to NSPS Subpart Y,

Region IV's determination states that "if coal conveyors 6, 12A, 12B, 13A, and

13B were constructed after October 24, 1974, they are also affected facilities

subject to Subpart Y ." (Emphasis added .) In other words, although the

determination refers to an undefined "coal conveying system," in fact, the Region

IV determination does not treat the conveyors as one collective affected facility .

This position is also reflected in the abstract for the Region IV applicability

htm //nfnuh ena anv/adi/index .cfm7CFID=701 R37(,&CFTOKFN=73259929&renuesttimeo 3/20/2006

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

EPA-Clean Air Act Applicability m vtet41finp®9n2O06_1 56 * * * * *

Page 4 of 4

determination, which states : "What portion of the coal conveying system is

Subject to Subpart Y at a coal preparation plant?" This question can only be

asked if individual conveyors can be subject to the Subpart Y NSPS .

Finally, if the Region IV determination were to reflect the position you attribute to

it, that is, that all "coal processing and conveying equipment" must be treated as

one affected facility, then Region IV would have analyzed the determination in a

different manner

. For example, rather than looking at the installation dates of

individual conveyors, the determination would have discussed the construction

costs and installation dates of all conveyors and processing equipment under a

reconstruction or capital expenditure analysis .

U .S . EPA's letter of December 27, 2001, did not make a final determination

regarding the applicability of the Subpart Y NSPS to the Xcel Energy, Alan King

facility . U .S . EPA continues to believe that the appropriate way to determine

applicability in this situation is to look at each conveyor that was replaced and

determine if each conveyor was new, modified or reconstructed

. The information

provided by Xcel appears to indicate that each conveyor was entirely

reconstructed . As a result, it appears that each individual conveyor is subject to

NSPS Subpart Y .

4

If there are any questions concerning this letter, please contact Jeffrey Bralko of

my staff at (312) 886-6816 or via e-mail to Bratko

.Jeffrey@EPA, mail

Sincerely yours,

George T . Czerniak, Chief

Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch

cc : Betsy Randt, MPCA

Planning &Results I Compliance Assistance I Compliance Incentives & Auditing I Compliance

Monitoring

Civil Enforcement I Cleanup Enforcement I Criminal Enforcement I Environmental Justice I NEPA

EPA Home I Privacyy and Security Notice

I

Contact Us

Last updated on Friday, February 24th, 2006

URL : http ://cfpub

.epa .gov/adirndex .cfm?CFID=7018376&CFTOKEN=73259929&requestfmeout=18

0

httn ://cfnub .cDa .Eov/adi/index .cfm?CFID=7019176X,

fFTOKFN=71?S9979RrreniipSttin,en

2rfnr)nnF

---

('H2V 1401 180 .I

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, APRIL 7, 2006

* * * * * PCB 2006-156 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Dated :

April 7, 2006

Sheldon A. Zabel

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen J . Bonebrake

Kavita M . Patel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax : 312-258-5600

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,

)

Petitioner,

)

V.

)

PCB

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent .

)

WILL COUNTY GENERATING STATION,

by electronic delivery upon the following

person :

Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk

James R. Thompson Center

100 W . Randolph

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

/s/ Kathleen C . Bassi

Kathleen C. Bassi

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached Appeal of

CAAPP Permit of

Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station and Appearances of Sheldon A

.

Zabel, Kathleen C . Bassi, Stephen J . Bonebrake, and Kavita M

. Patel,

(Permit Appeal - Air)

and by electronic and first class mail upon

the following person

:

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276